Why a Trump Supporter does Not Support Andrew Yang’s UBI Proposal

It might seem rather contradictory for someone who supports Donald Trump to be skeptical of Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposal. However, my support for Mr. Trump and skepticism of his UBI idea are not diametrically opposed, and I’ll explain why. While I’ve decided against voting for Mr. Yang in the primary, I do appreciate the idea of the Freedom Dividend, though I argue that it is not a replacement for living wages. It amuses me to see proponents of supply-side economic theory trying to discredit UBI.

The Inefficacy of Supply-side Apologetics

Supply-side apologists advocate for policies that go directly against fundamental economic principles. Markets, driven by demand, are not designed to function as these theories suggest. Their arguments are, in essence, a form of misinformation, and one must question their understanding of economics. Meanwhile, even when basic-income experiments are said to have failed, the reasons behind these failures often have less to do with the doomsaying of critics and more to do with other factors, such as social and cultural impacts.

The Flawed Logic Behind UBI

What’s more, the proposal for UBI is based on wishful thinking and fails to pass the scrutiny of basic economic and financial principles. Providing everyone with the same quantity of a resource does not account for its value. According to economic theory, if everyone is given the same amount of money and that money is not earned, its value becomes negligible due to inflation. On the day UBI is introduced, every type of service or commodity you need will likely increase in price, and those providing these services will take advantage of the situation. Hence, the day after UBI is introduced, it will feel exactly the same as if you didn’t have any money the day before. This is a logical consequence of how economies and inflation operate.

Real-world Examples and Implications

Consider a successful basic-income experiment like the one in Canada, where the Negative Income Tax was implemented. While it did not eliminate poverty altogether, it did significantly reduce it. Critics often point to correlated issues such as increased divorces, but these are often

Interestingly, UBI experiments in places like Finland and Kenya have also shown mixed results. Critics argue that these programs failed because people became complacent and stopped working or seeking education, but the reality is more nuanced. Often, social and cultural factors, along with the design of the programs themselves, are at play. For instance, the programme in Kenya was deemed “anti-family” for causing a surge in divorces, which highlights the complex interplay of economic and social factors.

Conclusion

While UBI can be an intriguing concept, it is not without its challenges and criticisms. The underlying issues with supply-side economics and the flawed assumptions behind UBI highlight the need for a more comprehensive approach to addressing economic inequality. A focus on living wages and job creation, complemented by targeted social programs, might offer a better path forward. As a Trump supporter, I believe we need a balanced and pragmatic approach to economic policy that considers both supply and demand realities.